Executive Summary1. Introduction1.1. What Is Reprocessing?1.2. Data and Sources1.3. Cost vs. Price1.4. Currency Conversion1.5. Cost of Money, Discount Rate, and Taxes1.6. Real vs. Nominal Dollars1.7. Plan of the Report2. Direct Disposal vs. Reprocessing and Recycling in Thermal Reactors2.1. How to Compare Costs of Different Fuel Cycles2.2. Calculating Breakeven PricesParameterCentral Estimate2.3. Breakeven Price Sensitivity Analysis2.4. Contribution to the Cost of Electricity2.5. Component Costs of the Fuel Cycle2.5.1. Uranium PricesNear TermLonger Term2.5.2. Reprocessing Costs and PricesLonger Term Prospects in New Facilities2.5.3. Costs of Disposal of Spent Fuel and Reprocessing WastesSpent Fuel Disposal CostsFactors Affecting Costs of Disposal of Spent Fuel and Reprocessing WastesLikely Reductions in Cost for Disposing of Reprocessing WastesCost Category2001 EstimatePercent of TotalSignificantly Driven By HeatSignificantly Driven By Volume, Mass, or PackagesNot Affected By Waste TypeTotalInterim Storage: Postponing the Costs of Either ApproachCostsMOX fabrication prices, like costs, are not publi2.5.5. Costs of Interim Storage of Spent FuelSomewhat higher costs have been estimated in Japan (where all fuel cycle costs are higher than they tend to be in the United States, as many other costs are). In an official 1998 study, total undiscounted costs for 40 years of storage in a 5,000-tonneWe have chosen $200/kgHM as our central estimate of interim storage costs (substantially more than the cost of at-reactor dry cask storage in the United States, and comparable to the discounted present value of the cost of independent dry cask storage i2.5.6. Enrichment Prices2.5.7. Low Enriched Uranium Fuel Fabrication Prices2.5.8. Premiums for Handling Reprocessed Uranium2.5.9. Conversion Prices2.5.10. Non-Price Factors: Fuel Burnup and Discount RateBurnup of Reprocessed Fuel and Fresh FuelDisposal Time and Discount RateSidebar: Volumes of Wastes From Direct Disposal and ReprocessingCosts of Managing ILW and LLW From ReprocessingSidebar: Reprocessing to Reduce the Need for Additional Repositories3. Direct Disposal vs. Recycling in Fast-Neutron Reactors3.1. Plutonium Breeding and Recycling in Fast Reactors3.2. Breakeven Uranium Price for Fast ReactorsParameterCentral Estimate3.3. Cost of Electricity for Fast Reactors and Once-through Systems3.4. Cost Parameters and Variations3.4.1. Difference in capital cost3.4.2. Reactor ownership and financing arrangements3.4.3. Reprocessing costs3.4.4. Core and blanket fuel fabrication cost3.4.5. Geological disposal of reprocessing waste3.4.6. Breeding ratio3.4.7. Depleted uranium priceSidebar: Thermal-Neutron and Fast-Neutron ReactorsSidebar: Characteristics of the Model Fast Reactor4. ConclusionsAppendix A. Fuel-cycle Cost CalculationsA.1. Direct Disposal v. Reprocessing and Recycle in LWRsA.2. Direct Disposal vs. Recycling in Fast-Neutron ReactorsAppendix B. World Uranium ResourcesB.1. IntroductionMediumB.2. Fallacy of the Traditional Economic Resource ModelB.3. Estimates of Uranium ResourcesSourceElasticity of Supply, (B.4. Uranium from SeawaterB.5. Uranium ConsumptionTHE ECONOMICS OF REPROCESSING VS. DIRECT DISPOSAL OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL Final Report 8/12/1999-7/30/2003 Matthew Bunn Steve Fetter John P. Holdren Bob van der Zwaan December 2003 DE-FG26-99FT4028 PROJECT ON MANAGING THE ATOM BELFER CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS JOHN F. KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT HARVARD UNIVERSITY 79 JOHN F. KENNEDY STREET CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02138© 2003 President and Fellows of Harvard University Printed in the United States of America This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. The authors of this report invite liberal use of the information provided in it for educational purposes, requiring only that the reproduced material clearly state: Reproduced from Matthew Bunn, Steve Fetter, John Holdren, and Bob van der Zwaan, The Economics of Reprocessing vs. Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel (Cambridge, Mass.: Project on Managing the Atom, Harvard University, 2003). Project on Managing the Atom Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University 79 JFK Street Cambridge, MA 02138 Web: http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/bcsia/atomAbstract This report assesses the economics of reprocessing versus direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel. The breakeven uranium price at which reprocessing spent nuclear fuel from existing light-water reactors (LWRs) and recycling the resulting plutonium and uranium in LWRs would become economic is assessed, using central estimates of the costs of different elements of the nuclear fuel cycle (and other fuel cycle input parameters), for a wide range of range of potential reprocessing prices. Sensitivity analysis is performed, showing that the conclusions reached are robust across a wide range of input parameters. The contribution of direct disposal or reprocessing and recycling to electricity cost is also assessed. The choice of particular central estimates and ranges for the input parameters of the fuel cycle model is justified through a review of the relevant literature. The impact of different fuel cycle approaches on the volume needed for geologic repositories is briefly discussed, as are the issues surrounding the possibility of performing separations and transmutation on spent nuclear fuel to reduce the need for additional repositories. A similar analysis is then performed of the breakeven uranium price at which deploying fast-neutron breeder reactors would become competitive compared with a once-through